My husband worked for a company that did one of those "anonymous" surveys. He was a little behind in turning his in, and HR contacted him and asked him what was taking so long.

He kinda doubted the anonymity after that.

At a company I worked for there was a plant manager and then two people who worked directly under him, one of whom should never have been given a position with any responsibility and another who was probably the best person I have ever worked for, bar none.

There was a company-wide morale and rating survey (supposedly anonymous). As it was being handed out to us on of the office staff made a huge point of telling everyone "Oh, where it says "not responsible guys job, it really means really great guys job."

Needless to say when the results came back and really great guy got super low marks and not responsible guy got really high marks, we realized it had been fixed.

I'd be suspicious that there wasn't some fine print in the info given that company sponsered therapy not being confidential.

I can't imagine that a state licensing board, or a professional organization, would consider this as being acceptable conditions of employment. You owe confidentiality to your client unless you are specifically given permission by the client, their legal guardian, or a judge instructs you to release the information- or if the client is a danger to himself or others. Agreeing to counsel employees, and discussing the contents of their sessions with their supervisor...I think that would get you sanctioned just about anywhere.

I'm sure it depends on the job and why they have a therapist. My BF has to go to the work psychologist every 12 months as part of his security clearance process and that certainly isn't completely confidential.

That's a different situation- in an evaluation, the client intends from the very beginning for the psychologist to release a report about what he talked about, there's no therapeutic relationship, no ongoing relationship, and no expectation of confidentiality. But if the psychologist is counseling or providing therapy, there's a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, no matter who's paying for the psychologist.

My local grocery store tends to have issues with people misbehaving just outside the front doors, and truly needs to have a uniformed security guard stationed outside it in order to prevent the customers entering and exiting the store from getting harassed in assorted ways, from being accosted by panhandlers to being heckled by drunks and jerks. The guard usually stands by the bike rack, which also deters the occasional bike thief.

Recently, they got a new security guard. The guard seemed like a nice guy, but then he started letting his buddies hang around him while he was doing his shift. I walked by them today and his friends were making absolutely horrible comments about the people walking in and out of the store. The guard was chuckling along with them. When I walked past them, they quieted down for a second, but once I'd gotten a few feet away from them, I clearly heard them saying something about me - it was extraordinarily rude and trying to repeat it would break the filters as it involved a number of vulgarities.

I walked into the store and told the manager on duty what was going on. She called the guard in - and he wasn't out front anymore when I left with my groceries half an hour later.

My local grocery store tends to have issues with people misbehaving just outside the front doors, and truly needs to have a uniformed security guard stationed outside it in order to prevent the customers entering and exiting the store from getting harassed in assorted ways, from being accosted by panhandlers to being heckled by drunks and jerks. The guard usually stands by the bike rack, which also deters the occasional bike thief.

Recently, they got a new security guard. The guard seemed like a nice guy, but then he started letting his buddies hang around him while he was doing his shift. I walked by them today and his friends were making absolutely horrible comments about the people walking in and out of the store. The guard was chuckling along with them. When I walked past them, they quieted down for a second, but once I'd gotten a few feet away from them, I clearly heard them saying something about me - it was extraordinarily rude and trying to repeat it would break the filters as it involved a number of vulgarities.

I walked into the store and told the manager on duty what was going on. She called the guard in - and he wasn't out front anymore when I left with my groceries half an hour later.

That's horrible! That's what the store was trying to prevent! Surely whoever hired him had to tell him so. What are maroon!

We had one - guy was a manager in my department. Angry all the time, needlessly demanding, micro-manager, backstabbing, condescending - a really class A jerk. He had a particular hatred of women in positions of authority, women in IT, women who aren't thin and beautiful (we'd all overheard his long tirades at his wife by phone about her weight). Our old director was useless, and let him get away with it - his employees HATED him. When old director went on sick leave for a few months, and new director met the twit, he was gone in a few weeks - transferred to management in another department (and, I heard, a 1-for-1 swap for a guy who was the manager in that new department, who is now in an unrelated department and happy as a clam).

New department, old jerk - he's put in charge of managing one of the development groups, specifically on a tool that his old department (my current department) uses daily. Who gets put as his point of contact in our department? Me. (yes, the fat lesbian who refused to put up with his nonsense when we worked together). He flatly refused to deal with me.

I'd be suspicious that there wasn't some fine print in the info given that company sponsered therapy not being confidential.

I can't imagine that a state licensing board, or a professional organization, would consider this as being acceptable conditions of employment. You owe confidentiality to your client unless you are specifically given permission by the client, their legal guardian, or a judge instructs you to release the information- or if the client is a danger to himself or others. Agreeing to counsel employees, and discussing the contents of their sessions with their supervisor...I think that would get you sanctioned just about anywhere.

I'm sure it depends on the job and why they have a therapist. My BF has to go to the work psychologist every 12 months as part of his security clearance process and that certainly isn't completely confidential.

That's a different situation- in an evaluation, the client intends from the very beginning for the psychologist to release a report about what he talked about, there's no therapeutic relationship, no ongoing relationship, and no expectation of confidentiality. But if the psychologist is counseling or providing therapy, there's a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, no matter who's paying for the psychologist.

Actually, the bolder is not the case. There are many circumstances where a therapist/psychologist may be providing therapy, but the client is NOT the individual in therapy, and confidentiality with the individual in therapy does not exist. The confidentiality is maintained between the therapist and the defined client. Therapy as a condition of probation is one example, and the situation can exist in work situations, as well - the military is one that I am aware of, but there are civilian examples as well.

The important difference, though, is that in these situations the absence of confidentiality is noted and discussed at the very beginning of therapy, and is noted as part of the informed consent process. The individual knows that sessions are not confidential, and any/all information is up for disclosure. As long as that has been clearly established, there is no violation of either laws or ethics.

If this was not discussed in the OP situation, I too would wonder about a "hidden camera" situation that the therapist would not know about, because otherwise they would be risking their license (and future employability).

We had one - guy was a manager in my department. Angry all the time, needlessly demanding, micro-manager, backstabbing, condescending - a really class A jerk. He had a particular hatred of women in positions of authority, women in IT, women who aren't thin and beautiful (we'd all overheard his long tirades at his wife by phone about her weight). Our old director was useless, and let him get away with it - his employees HATED him. When old director went on sick leave for a few months, and new director met the twit, he was gone in a few weeks - transferred to management in another department (and, I heard, a 1-for-1 swap for a guy who was the manager in that new department, who is now in an unrelated department and happy as a clam).

New department, old jerk - he's put in charge of managing one of the development groups, specifically on a tool that his old department (my current department) uses daily. Who gets put as his point of contact in our department? Me. (yes, the fat lesbian who refused to put up with his nonsense when we worked together). He flatly refused to deal with me.

His tool is now slated for end-of-life in the next year. Wonder why?

This must be a cousin to the guy who said to my mom's face that all successful women were Nazis. Her response was, "Well, then I'm next to Hitler." I know that was probably un - Ehell - approved, but I laughed when she told me that. Unfortunately, that jerk is still employed - and is my mom's boss.

Logged

"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter

My local grocery store tends to have issues with people misbehaving just outside the front doors, and truly needs to have a uniformed security guard stationed outside it in order to prevent the customers entering and exiting the store from getting harassed in assorted ways, from being accosted by panhandlers to being heckled by drunks and jerks. The guard usually stands by the bike rack, which also deters the occasional bike thief.

Recently, they got a new security guard. The guard seemed like a nice guy, but then he started letting his buddies hang around him while he was doing his shift. I walked by them today and his friends were making absolutely horrible comments about the people walking in and out of the store. The guard was chuckling along with them. When I walked past them, they quieted down for a second, but once I'd gotten a few feet away from them, I clearly heard them saying something about me - it was extraordinarily rude and trying to repeat it would break the filters as it involved a number of vulgarities.

I walked into the store and told the manager on duty what was going on. She called the guard in - and he wasn't out front anymore when I left with my groceries half an hour later.

I had an employee and her friend hit me up for money as I walked into the store one day. I told the manager, he walked out to the lobby, called her inside, fired her, escorted her out, and ordered her and her friend off the property or they would be arrested. When I left he escorted me to my car, because she had asked if that BAD WORD had ratted her out. They were in the parking lot and heckled me. He told them he was calling the cops when he got back inside, waited till I locked my door and went inside.

I witnessed and benifited for the polar opposite of Professional Darwinism.

I had an education student observe me today. She came to our tech meeting, which was short. She had been asking me about the tech I use, so we stayed and our Campus Instructional Technology Specialist answered some of her questions. She mentioned the name of your IT integration professor - We laughed and assured her that he will take his time and make sure she understood everything. (He is our CITS direct boss).

When I got home tonight there was on email from the professor/head of our CITS. He had received an e-mail from the lady that thanked us for helping her and demonstrating how tech can enhance learning and how impress she was with our campus compared to the school her children attend. (We are an old campus, things had to be retrofitted, and we are Title I school. Her kids attend a almost new school in a district that is a major competitor to us. People tend to see our district as an old, rural, backwards district. That isn't who we are.)

The head of CITS/Professor had forwarded the e-mail to my principal, the head of Tech, the head of elementary Ed, and the Superintendent. She has a few years of training. But if she applies that e-mail means her name will be remembered favorably.

I'd be suspicious that there wasn't some fine print in the info given that company sponsered therapy not being confidential.

I can't imagine that a state licensing board, or a professional organization, would consider this as being acceptable conditions of employment. You owe confidentiality to your client unless you are specifically given permission by the client, their legal guardian, or a judge instructs you to release the information- or if the client is a danger to himself or others. Agreeing to counsel employees, and discussing the contents of their sessions with their supervisor...I think that would get you sanctioned just about anywhere.

I'm sure it depends on the job and why they have a therapist. My BF has to go to the work psychologist every 12 months as part of his security clearance process and that certainly isn't completely confidential.

That's a different situation- in an evaluation, the client intends from the very beginning for the psychologist to release a report about what he talked about, there's no therapeutic relationship, no ongoing relationship, and no expectation of confidentiality. But if the psychologist is counseling or providing therapy, there's a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, no matter who's paying for the psychologist.

Actually, the bolder is not the case. There are many circumstances where a therapist/psychologist may be providing therapy, but the client is NOT the individual in therapy, and confidentiality with the individual in therapy does not exist. The confidentiality is maintained between the therapist and the defined client. Therapy as a condition of probation is one example, and the situation can exist in work situations, as well - the military is one that I am aware of, but there are civilian examples as well.

The important difference, though, is that in these situations the absence of confidentiality is noted and discussed at the very beginning of therapy, and is noted as part of the informed consent process. The individual knows that sessions are not confidential, and any/all information is up for disclosure. As long as that has been clearly established, there is no violation of either laws or ethics.

If this was not discussed in the OP situation, I too would wonder about a "hidden camera" situation that the therapist would not know about, because otherwise they would be risking their license (and future employability).

I obviously can't speak to all professions, but in my own, people on probation or parole are very much protected by professional confidentiality. I could have been brought up on ethics charges for releasing the details of what a parolee told me to his parole officer, absent of a danger to self or others. And I never had a parole officer ask me for details: they were always satisfied with a statement that the client had attended, had addressed issues, and was making satisfactory progress. I've been told the military is invasive...that's why so many places exist to provide low-cost services to military and their families. However, I still would question if it's ethical practice to release content of sessions to a CO. Whether a soldier is fit for duty, yes; if a soldier is a danger to himself or others, certainly. But the CO doesn't need to know the details, and at least in my profession, I have an ethical obligation to withhold details.